lvn--i don't and didn't. i also knew that with the forward button, if i didn't want it forwarded i probably shouldn't put it in an email. once you send it, you lose control of it. i remember years ago, pre-e-mail (and bread was a nickel a loaf) an administrator realized that you don't always put your thoughts in memos.

CoBster in Residence wrote:

---

Again, you miss the point. According to the USM policy, the president (not a dean) can have email monitored. This is another example of Doty acting like a "Little Shelby." All of you outside the CoB who thought Doty hung the moon would do well to remember those who have consistently exposed his deceit and corruption. Recall all the "nasty" posts about Doty...when all is said and done, you'll have to reconcile what you thought you knew and what you actually know. Kind of like those outside of CoEP who thought Martray was a good guy...before they read those court documents.

---

Let's not assume this is true. We have has many threads starting out with breathless annoncements like this that proved false. This is a good way to perpetuate rumor and gossip. Unless it can be confirmed by some source that can actually be verified, best to take a skeptical attitude.

Reading email is occuring at many campuses. Recently one of my College of Arts and Science colleagues was called into the chancellor's office where he was summarily "warned" that his email correspondence with a research assistant was not appropriate. As an example, they did not like the jokes that they mailed/forwarded to one another. He didn't get fired, but he sure does know that the powers that be are watching . . . .

boomer wrote:

---

I was just told my someone with iTech connections that Dean Doty has been monitoring the e-mails of about 10 of his faculty in the college.  This has been going on for some time and can be substantiated.

---

I got an e-mail early this morning about this.  The advice from legal counsel is to first see who else in Doty's office or administration knows about this.

stephen judd wrote:

---

Let's not assume this is true. We have has many threads starting out with breathless annoncements like this that proved false. This is a good way to perpetuate rumor and gossip. Unless it can be confirmed by some source that can actually be verified, best to take a skeptical attitude.

---

On a campus where emails have been monitored, why would you ever question that an administrator would monitor the emails of those faculty he dislikes?

A better question is why does Stephen Judd consistently support any administrator not named Thames? I am truly curious about this. You have as little information to suggest that Doty isn't monitoring emails as you have to support the claim that Doty is monitoring emails, yet you choose to believe that he is not. Why is that?

After being at USM for X years, having seen the Thames administration for 4 years, and having observed the current crop of deans for 3 years, I'm not too sure why anybody at USM trusts any member of the administration here.

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

Stephen isn't supporting anybody. He is just being fair. As you point out, there is no evidence either way with respect to Doty and emails.

---

Sorry, but there's no fairness around here. To even suggest that an upper-level USM administrator is acting in good faith shows incredible naivete.

Logic wrote:

---

Gnaw-hui wrote: ... You have as little information to suggest that Doty isn't monitoring emails as you have to support the claim that Doty is monitoring emails, yet you choose to believe that he is not. Why is that?... To answer your question, Gnaw-Hui, that is what logic demands.  The person making the claim has the burden of supplying evidence for the claim.  It isn't logical to think the claim is true until somebody provides evidence it is wrong.   I hope you don't teach at USM and use that logic with students.

---

Thank you, Logic.

Logic and Stephen Judd,

Logic (the mode of thought) is a wonderful exercise when all participants may be assumed to be acting transparently, rationally, and in the mutual best interest, or when individual welfare (versus others) isn't in question. When everyone uses logic, then logic reigns and the outcome is acceptable to everyone. It's like playing a game in which everyone follows the rules to the letter.

There are many, many academic studies, even entire fields of study, devoted to the irrational behavior of different groups of people. At the risk of quoting Mr. Spock, humans are highly illogical beings. We cannot be trusted to always take the logical action. Once one individual abandons logic, then it's as if the game falls apart. Some attempt to operate under the rules (logic) while others simply bend rules/break rules (act illogically). When one cries foul because another doesn't follow the rules, who is the referee? Is the referee unbiased? Can the referee be trusted?

Your insistence on using logic in this instance just shows how ridiculous we as academics have become. Let's just take some time and gather some evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Doty is monitoring emails. Meanwhile, Doty is reading CoB faculty emails. When the proof is presented, you will want time to think it over. If you decide to complain about Doty's monitoring, to whom will you complain? Jay Grimes? Shelby Thames? Thomas Meredith? Are any of those unbiased? Are any trustworthy? You're giving the benefit of the doubt to an individual who has violated academic freedom and shared governance. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to an individual who commanded a faculty member not to reveal his own annual evaluation scores, because Doty apparently feels that we as faculty don't have the right to share our evaluation information with each other.

Your insistence on using logic also fails in the face of your own hypocrisy. Are you willing to give Shelby Thames the benefit of the doubt? Is every Thames move assumed to be good until proven bad? Or have you decided that Thames is bad, so all his actions are bad? All it takes is a glance at this message board to find the answer.

The bottom line is that the USM faculty as a whole is ill equipped to deal with wannabe politicians like Doty, Thames, Pood, Fos, Gandy, Pierce, and their ilk because academics play by one set of rules while administrators play by another. Administrators keep playing the lot of us like fiddles because some of us insist on trusting those who have proven themselves untrustworthy. Somehow, this insistence on logically proving everything seems to make some academics feel superior to those of us who use gut feelings, instinct, rumor, innuendo, and experience to make decisions about administrative actions.

As such, I'll believe that Doty is acting dishonestly until somebody proves that he is not. On what do I base my decision? On my experience with Doty. On stories friends have told me that they witnessed firsthand. On information I hold firsthand regarding Doty's corrupt decision making.

You give him the benefit of the doubt. I prefer not to be unpleasantly surprised.

You're playing a game by rules that only you have to follow. Sure, it's admirable to stick to your principles, but to continue to trust someone who has proven himself untrustworthy is stupid. Also, you didn't answer my question about Shelby? Do you always give him the benefit?

I forgot my own rule about not posting on business-related threads. Sorry. I'll be out in the yard if anybody needs me. There's coffee on the stove. Y'all have fun.

Doty can't be monitoring email, unless he's doing it from a remote location. He's apparently on vacation this week.

Cobster in Residence wrote:

---

Doty can't be monitoring email, unless he's doing it from a remote location. He's apparently on vacation this week.

---

On vacation?  Right.  Nope.  He's out talking to the people at UC Riverside about being the next Director of their MBA program.

Gnaw-hui wrote:

---

Logic and Stephen Judd, Logic (the mode of thought) is a wonderful exercise when all participants may be assumed to be acting transparently, rationally, and in the mutual best interest, or when individual welfare (versus others) isn't in question. When everyone uses logic, then logic reigns and the outcome is acceptable to everyone. It's like playing a game in which everyone follows the rules to the letter. There are many, many academic studies, even entire fields of study, devoted to the irrational behavior of different groups of people. At the risk of quoting Mr. Spock, humans are highly illogical beings. We cannot be trusted to always take the logical action. Once one individual abandons logic, then it's as if the game falls apart. Some attempt to operate under the rules (logic) while others simply bend rules/break rules (act illogically). When one cries foul because another doesn't follow the rules, who is the referee? Is the referee unbiased? Can the referee be trusted? Your insistence on using logic in this instance just shows how ridiculous we as academics have become. Let's just take some time and gather some evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Doty is monitoring emails. Meanwhile, Doty is reading CoB faculty emails. When the proof is presented, you will want time to think it over. If you decide to complain about Doty's monitoring, to whom will you complain? Jay Grimes? Shelby Thames? Thomas Meredith? Are any of those unbiased? Are any trustworthy? You're giving the benefit of the doubt to an individual who has violated academic freedom and shared governance. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to an individual who commanded a faculty member not to reveal his own annual evaluation scores, because Doty apparently feels that we as faculty don't have the right to share our evaluation information with each other. Your insistence on using logic also fails in the face of your own hypocrisy. Are you willing to give Shelby Thames the benefit of the doubt? Is every Thames move assumed to be good until proven bad? Or have you decided that Thames is bad, so all his actions are bad? All it takes is a glance at this message board to find the answer. The bottom line is that the USM faculty as a whole is ill equipped to deal with wannabe politicians like Doty, Thames, Pood, Fos, Gandy, Pierce, and their ilk because academics play by one set of rules while administrators play by another. Administrators keep playing the lot of us like fiddles because some of us insist on trusting those who have proven themselves untrustworthy. Somehow, this insistence on logically proving everything seems to make some academics feel superior to those of us who use gut feelings, instinct, rumor, innuendo, and experience to make decisions about administrative actions. As such, I'll believe that Doty is acting dishonestly until somebody proves that he is not. On what do I base my decision? On my experience with Doty. On stories friends have told me that they witnessed firsthand. On information I hold firsthand regarding Doty's corrupt decision making. You give him the benefit of the doubt. I prefer not to be unpleasantly surprised.

---

When the proof is presented, you will want time to think it over.

An assertion -- particularly by an uncited source given by someone operating under a nom, is simply not evidence.

Doty may be no angel -- but it is irresponsible to assign deeds to people simply on the basis of a reputation that may or may not be deserving. I tend to believe that this is a stance I take with anyone, since I have seen careers ruined by accusations that were unjustified.

I think that if you look at my posts for the past two years you will find I fairly consistently raise issues of concern in the presence of fairly substantial evidence, but I tend to be cautious when evidence is lacking. There has never been any suggestion, to my knowlege, that administrator other than the President can authorize or has the ability to perform email monitoring. So I find this accusation seriously lacking the weight of any kind of authority.

It may well be true -- but simply saying it (or saying that because you think Doty is in league with the devil) doesn't make it so.

Let's see the substance supporting the accusation.

Tired of being sick wrote:

---

Do we have to decide objectively every day that it is hot outside in the summer in Hattiesburg? I do not think so. To think it might be cool outside, especially in the afternoon and early evening, until at least September, is silly. Likewise, certain administrator's behavior is equally predictable, and equally as bad.

---

If you are looking for truth you do have to check the weather.  Otherwise you are just talking about probabilities and one cold day in June you will be wrong.  You can discuss probabilities, but you are very wrong if you think you can predict "certain administrators behavior" with similar probability as the weather in the summer.   This "fuzzy" thinking of yours would allow you to associate any negative behavior to any person who has done something negative in the past.  

This sort of thinking only works for people who write books about UFOs.